心导管插入术患者的手术和透视时间及桡骨和股骨通路对比量的比较

T. Vargas, Barbara Cardoso Campos, Naury de Jesus Danzi Soares, Luciano Magalhães Vitorino, S. Ibrahim, Bruno Laurenti Janella
{"title":"心导管插入术患者的手术和透视时间及桡骨和股骨通路对比量的比较","authors":"T. Vargas, Barbara Cardoso Campos, Naury de Jesus Danzi Soares, Luciano Magalhães Vitorino, S. Ibrahim, Bruno Laurenti Janella","doi":"10.1590/0104-1843000000058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is controversy in the literature about the advantages of the radial vs. femoral access route for diagnostic catheterizations. This study aimed to compare the radial and femoral access for procedural and fluoroscopy times and for contrast volume. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study based on the records of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization from July 2012 to December 2013. Results: We evaluated 192 patients and the radial access was used in 78.1% of the cases. Mean age was 63.1 ± 11.9 years, most were male (55.7%) and 21.4% had diabetes. Procedural time was lower in the radial group: 12.0 minutes (9.0 to 17.2 minutes) vs. 18.3 minutes (12.0 to 34.5 minutes), p < 0.01. Fluoroscopy time was 270.0 seconds (180.0 to 389.5 seconds) vs. 244.0 seconds (175.3 to 705.0 seconds), and there was no difference between groups (p = 0.59). Contrast volume was lower in the radial group: 100.0 mL (75.0 to 117.5 mL) vs. 100.0 mL (80.0 to 150.0 mL), p < 0.01. Conclusions: In this laboratory, which favored the radial access for cardiac catheterization, procedural and fluoroscopy times, as well as contrast volume, were lower or comparable to the femoral access.","PeriodicalId":101093,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","volume":"53 1","pages":"349-352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparação entre os Tempos de Procedimento e Fluoroscopia e o Volume de Contraste das Vias de Acesso Radial e Femoral em Pacientes Submetidos a Cateterismo Cardíaco\",\"authors\":\"T. Vargas, Barbara Cardoso Campos, Naury de Jesus Danzi Soares, Luciano Magalhães Vitorino, S. Ibrahim, Bruno Laurenti Janella\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0104-1843000000058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: There is controversy in the literature about the advantages of the radial vs. femoral access route for diagnostic catheterizations. This study aimed to compare the radial and femoral access for procedural and fluoroscopy times and for contrast volume. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study based on the records of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization from July 2012 to December 2013. Results: We evaluated 192 patients and the radial access was used in 78.1% of the cases. Mean age was 63.1 ± 11.9 years, most were male (55.7%) and 21.4% had diabetes. Procedural time was lower in the radial group: 12.0 minutes (9.0 to 17.2 minutes) vs. 18.3 minutes (12.0 to 34.5 minutes), p < 0.01. Fluoroscopy time was 270.0 seconds (180.0 to 389.5 seconds) vs. 244.0 seconds (175.3 to 705.0 seconds), and there was no difference between groups (p = 0.59). Contrast volume was lower in the radial group: 100.0 mL (75.0 to 117.5 mL) vs. 100.0 mL (80.0 to 150.0 mL), p < 0.01. Conclusions: In this laboratory, which favored the radial access for cardiac catheterization, procedural and fluoroscopy times, as well as contrast volume, were lower or comparable to the femoral access.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"349-352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1843000000058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1843000000058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:关于桡骨与股动脉导管入路在诊断性置管中的优势,文献中存在争议。本研究旨在比较桡骨入路和股骨入路的手术时间和透视时间以及造影剂体积。方法:基于2012年7月至2013年12月连续心导管置入术患者的观察性、回顾性研究。结果:我们对192例患者进行了评估,78.1%的患者采用了桡骨通路。平均年龄63.1±11.9岁,男性居多(55.7%),糖尿病患者占21.4%。桡骨组手术时间较短:12.0分钟(9.0 ~ 17.2分钟)vs. 18.3分钟(12.0 ~ 34.5分钟),p < 0.01。透视时间分别为270.0秒(180.0 ~ 389.5秒)和244.0秒(175.3 ~ 705.0秒),组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.59)。桡动脉组造影剂体积较低:100.0 mL (75.0 ~ 117.5 mL)比100.0 mL (80.0 ~ 150.0 mL), p < 0.01。结论:在本实验室,桡动脉入路更适合心导管插管,手术和透视时间,以及造影剂体积,比股骨入路更低或相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparação entre os Tempos de Procedimento e Fluoroscopia e o Volume de Contraste das Vias de Acesso Radial e Femoral em Pacientes Submetidos a Cateterismo Cardíaco
Background: There is controversy in the literature about the advantages of the radial vs. femoral access route for diagnostic catheterizations. This study aimed to compare the radial and femoral access for procedural and fluoroscopy times and for contrast volume. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study based on the records of consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization from July 2012 to December 2013. Results: We evaluated 192 patients and the radial access was used in 78.1% of the cases. Mean age was 63.1 ± 11.9 years, most were male (55.7%) and 21.4% had diabetes. Procedural time was lower in the radial group: 12.0 minutes (9.0 to 17.2 minutes) vs. 18.3 minutes (12.0 to 34.5 minutes), p < 0.01. Fluoroscopy time was 270.0 seconds (180.0 to 389.5 seconds) vs. 244.0 seconds (175.3 to 705.0 seconds), and there was no difference between groups (p = 0.59). Contrast volume was lower in the radial group: 100.0 mL (75.0 to 117.5 mL) vs. 100.0 mL (80.0 to 150.0 mL), p < 0.01. Conclusions: In this laboratory, which favored the radial access for cardiac catheterization, procedural and fluoroscopy times, as well as contrast volume, were lower or comparable to the femoral access.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信